Reasons To Be Doubtful

[Guest Crowlogic]

"Scientists evaluating the evidence say the animal's real"

 

The poster I'm quoting is using one of the oldest advertising tricks in the book.  Say scientists studying the evidence means next to nothing.  How many scientists  are studying the evidence against how many scientists debunking or discounting the evidence?  Just for argument there are around 2400 public and private  4 year colleges in the united states and there is an estimated 500,000 pure scientists and a combined science and engineering numbering around 6,000,000.  Now if were only concentrate on scientists/academics there are around 52,000 teaching biology.  When  scientists studying bigfoot are named they are always the same small handful.  Are there even 100?  The two names that come up time and again Bingernagle and Meldrum are biased by their belief in bigfoot.  Melba Ketchum was biased in her belief.  

DWA, could you please link to some of these reports where people claim to witness a bigfoot doing the wood knock?  Thanks.

Wood knocking seems to be a fairly recent development in bigfoot mythology.   It gives Woods and Wildmen a new dimension a new sheen.

[1980squatch]

DWA, could you please link to some of these reports where people claim to witness a bigfoot doing the wood knock?  Thanks.

 

Actually, from a skeptical viewpoint I would think it is interesting that there are none. Wood knocking has been part of the canon for sometime now, and since many reports are simply made up stories based on bigfoot lore, one would expect there be some...

 

Edit- just saw your post Crow.  Knocking is indeed more recent, but it does date back I'm guessing around 10 years or so?  Enough for some reports I would think.  

Edited November 23, 2015 by 1980squatch

[dmaker]

Well, DWA knows bigfoot is real because of all the reports he has read. Yet just today he claimed that there are reports of people witnessing bigfoot making tree knocks. Oddly, I cannot find any reports that support his claim. So either, he deliberately embellished that detail, OR he really is not that familiar with the reports after all. 

 

I wonder which one it is..?

[Guest DWA]

Wood knocks:  Bindernagel's first book describes one which I can't put up here because I can't access it electronically.  Meldrum's book describes one by Bob Titmus, ditto.

 

There's one from FL and one from CO in the BFRO database, but those will take too long for me personally to bother. And of course "all them could be lying or otherwise wrong" is an unacceptable response.

 

This one's easy enough:  http://www.bfro.net/avevid/mjm/deerkills.asp No, this one doesn't have anyone seeing the animal making the sounds; but there is a lot of activity - including a sighting - in compelling conjunction with the sounds.  Which again says:  You don't consider it proven...but you don't rule it out, particularly as it doesn't seem to comport with what any known animal making sounds on wood does, particularly us and woodpeckers, everybody's favorite culprits.

 

Update!  found the CO one:  http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=27075

Edited November 23, 2015 by DWA

[dmaker]

Thank-you.

[Twist]

Here is the Co report where the witness claims to have seen the BF.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=27075

 

*edit - Didn't see DWA found the same link and got to it before me. 

 

So, is it safe to assume, if these BF are knocking and it seems to be a common occurrence, they are signaling other BF which implies they are often traveling or living in a family pack?   It should make them easier to find if they travel in numbers, or at least there would be more BF per square mile if traveling in a pack, but on the flip side they could have more scouts and look outs to see humans approaching.....hmmmmmm

Edited November 24, 2015 by TWlST

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

DWA, could you please link to some of these reports where people claim to witness a bigfoot doing the wood knock?  Thanks.

 

Actually, from a skeptical viewpoint I would think it is interesting that there are none. Wood knocking has been part of the canon for sometime now, and since many reports are simply made up stories based on bigfoot lore, one would expect there be some...

 

Edit- just saw your post Crow.  Knocking is indeed more recent, but it does date back I'm guessing around 10 years or so?  Enough for some reports I would think.  

 

10 years is still too recent.  When the mythology went public in the 60's and 70's the "experts" weren't saying things like "If you're in the forests where they are you hear these wood knocks."  I'm not aware of the Native Americans saying anything about wood knocking.  

[norseman]

The Salish around me call Sasquatch the "Scwenyti" or stick indian. It would seem they have some sort of association with sticks.

[Guest]

Now, until researchers settle on a common term such as "wood knocking" a behaviour might get missed or reported differently, thus making it hard to find examples of until the term came into common use.

 

Theres a couple of things come to my mind, one was a 60s report by one of the early report collectors, of a guy who had several experinces, and reported among them what he described as "rock clacking" or similar term. I think that was just his perception of the noise he was hearing. But it was a montane region, there could have been more convenient rocks than trees. Then another one I'm thinking of, is one of the 20s or 30s miner reports, where they said something like "beating on the trees at night"

 

Anyway, you get any topic with people working on it all over the place, and the terminology doesn't coalesce at once. If for example you were researching the early attempts at manned flight, pre Wright Brothers, in original sources, I doubt you'd find such terms as aileron or elevator, nevertheless equivalent types of control maybe existed, and were called different things. Common terminology didn't really all come together until the 1910s and later.

 

Although some of these things like woodknocks, calls, tree twists, structures, etc are speculative, they appear to exhibit high correlation with the subject, thus form integral parts of working hypotheses that have the object of finding the **** critter. This is where stubborn skepticism seems to turn denialist and proponents start to get the idea that there are people working against progress and discovery. Due to insistance that efforts not be concentrated where these things seem to be prevalent, or in other words, being "instructed" to ignore them. No researcher really wants to be wasting time up a blind alley, so if things such as this didn't seem to have a significant association with the target, then we would likely abandon them as not useful.

 

 

Anyway, apart from that, I find the implication that new discoveries about the subjects behavior are "suspicious", leaving aside skepticism about whether they are acutally occuring, to be a very illogical smear attempt. Do you skeptics go around saying "Oh, NASA annnounced new exoplanet discoveries today, well that's just embroidering the myth."? It's not suspicious it's entirely expected. If we'd been trotting round the woods for 50 years and hadn't come up with new hypotheses and correlations, that woud be freaking suspicious. In the ardour to deny deny deny, in the interests of logic, logic is constantly betrayed, whored out and violated.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Ok let me be objective,

 

1. I hear unusual whoops on two occasions, 11pm 7/4/2013 and 7/12/2013 at 3:50am

2. I discern two individuals the second occasion

3. One was seemingly a response to fireworks, the other to spot lights on a sheriff's deputy vehicle responding to a man down

4. I begin recording in order to capture the individuals I heard

5. I learn there are many things that go bump in the night, and some are mistaken as activity

6. I do record unusual wood knocking and unidentified vocalizations, the two happen in sequence on one occasion, a wood knock and a groaning moan.

7. I foster the belief that due to number 6 I have reason for 7

8. I become a blog-aholic at the BFF

9. I realize 8 is not a logical progression from 1-7

10. I reason that my time would be better spent on knitting than chasing bigfoot, but who needs more sweaters?

11. I attempt a hiatus that fails in 2014-2015

12. I work 90 hours a week and cannot record as I would like in 2015 and capture nothing.

13. I start to doubt my previous conclusions and start a thread about it

14. I realize that the only thing I can truly say is that 1-6 happened and I cannot escape that, that I cannot explain it without some odd conclusion.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Twist]

I'd love a Christmas sweater!!!

[southernyahoo]

Flash a , regarding the trail cam subject. I find it odd we don't have a trail cam yet that is clear but I understand the odds of catching one given the vast range. That all makes sense. What I was getting at is the proponents that try to explain it away by saying the Bigfoot actively avoids it. BF is going to be a flesh and blood creature if discovered yet a lot of special abilities are attributed to it by certain people.

 

Some researchers may reach the conclusion through experiment. We may have something that seems to work like leaving recorders in places the encounters occur which often results in a visit from what sounds like a large biped. Then we can construct another experiment where some, but not all recorders are accompanied by trail cams. Note which ones get visited by the bipeds, while all other factors are constant , bait, scent, favorable location etc.....

Flash a , regarding the trail cam subject. I find it odd we don't have a trail cam yet that is clear but I understand the odds of catching one given the vast range. That all makes sense. What I was getting at is the proponents that try to explain it away by saying the Bigfoot actively avoids it. BF is going to be a flesh and blood creature if discovered yet a lot of special abilities are attributed to it by certain people.

 

Some researchers may reach the conclusion through experiment. We may have something that seems to work like leaving recorders in places the encounters occur which often results in a visit from what sounds like a large biped. Then we can construct another experiment where some, but not all recorders are accompanied by trail cams. Note which ones get visited by the bipeds, while all other factors are constant , bait, scent, favorable location etc.....

[Guest WesT]

Ok, let me be objective.

 

1. Looks at LCB's avatar and reckons it's time.

2. Runs into acquaintance who say's he discovered a structure of unknown origin on his families private property..

3. 3 months later I get the opportunity to see what remained of the structure in question.

4. For the first hour of so, I search the property, and see nothing I would consider out of the ordinary.

5. Finally find structure. It's a teepee type structure that weaved deadfall and living tree's into a what looked like a blind for hunting.

6. No sign of any type of human fasteners or occupation. Closer analysis of the structure reveals it's intended purpose and mode of operation.

7. Searching the parameter of the structure other odd manipulations were found that were previously overlooked.

8. Tried to rationalize it all by saying to myself "it's just a pile of sticks".  Critical thinking vs the facts ensues. Facts win.

9. Theory stands, there is someone or something that lives off the land that can manipulate the environment in order to survive and remain anonymous. What or who, I don't know.

 

and last but not least ten!

 

10. Ya'll have a nice day.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Hey I started that numbering thing, it was pretty stupid I know, well anyhoot....

 

Stick structure pictured left, I could not budge those suckers, maybe boy scouts got errhh done,

 

It was a first is a line of things that made me at least consider the possibility of Sasquatch in

 

my area, and I began reading books on the subject of Urban Sasquatch, or at least the idea of it,

 

and then lost interest, working and hobbies take over, till one night in 2013 when it became personal

 

as what I heard was in my yard, probably eating apples off my apple tree. Suffice it say that will move

 

needle. I have small rock thrown at me, some other objects possibly, tree crashes down after I take a

 

leak, I pursue something that hauled off into the marsh, I record strange stuff, my neighbor reports red

 

glowing eyes stating at him from behind brush pile, my wife continues to report hearing knocking sounds

 

earlier this summer at late hours of the night. I research looking for prints many times...nothing is found...

 

that is what really bothers me...

Edited November 24, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Twist]

Southernyahoo,

Are you speaking of actual events that have led to the belief that it is avoiding cams or describing a "what if" scenario? I just want to be clear.

I'm not familiar with what people are using to record audio, are they totally silent when capturing audio or do they emit electronic static of some sort?